4 ms·

You are mostly referring to epistemology and ontology, two rather theoretic branches of philosophy that probably aren't that relevant to software. The philosoph

You are mostly referring to epistemology and ontology, two rather theoretic branches of philosophy that probably aren't that relevant to software. The philosophy of free software (even your URL contains the P-Word ;)) makes use of ethical arguments and political philosophy, for examples the ideals of enlightenment. The age of enlightenment was kickstarted by philosophers, some of whom went to prison for clearly voicing thoughts that seem quite common to us today. I want to argue that, while modern academic philosophy may be a bit of an ivory tower, philosophy in general isn't synonymous with "detached from practical concerns".

gioele 14y ago
> philosophy in general isn't synonymous with "detached from practical concerns". I strongly agree with you on this; I did not make my point clear enough. What I do not like is the use that the article's author did of the term "philosophical". I do not think that philosophy is synonymous with "detached from practical concerns" but it feels like the author of the article do: > Aside from being exciting to FOSS enthusiasts for philosophical reasons, it’s also going to make it much easier for third party developers to (for instance) implement Wayland EGL client and EGL server support, or to provide better integration of GLES/VG with X.Org. To me it reads like "Aside finally shouting the mouth of these FOSS do-gooders, this change has practical positive implications". As if the people pushing the FOSS philosophy where not doing that because of their interest in practical (long term) benefits.